Back

A Conversational Artificial Intelligence Framework for Comparative Pathway-Level Profiling of Sezary Syndrome and Primary Cutaneous CD8+ Aggressive Epidermotropic Cytotoxic T-Cell Lymphoma (PCAECTCL)

Diaz, F. C.; Waldrup, B.; Carranza, F. G.; Manjarrez, S.; Velazquez-Villarreal, E.

2026-04-17 oncology
10.64898/2026.04.15.26350992 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Sezary syndrome (SS) is an aggressive leukemic variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) with distinct clinical and biological features compared to rarer entities such as primary cutaneous CD8+ aggressive epidermotropic cytotoxic T-cell lymphoma (PCAECTCL). Although recurrent genomic alterations in CTCL have been described, comparative analyses at the pathway level across biologically divergent subtypes remain limited. Here, we leveraged a conversational artificial intelligence (AI) platform for precision oncology to enable rapid, integrative, and hypothesis-driven interrogation of publicly available genomic datasets. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of somatic mutation and clinical data from the Columbia University CTCL cohort accessed via cBioPortal. Cases were stratified into SS (n=26) and PCAECTCL (n=13). High-confidence coding variants were curated and mapped to biologically relevant signaling pathways and functional gene categories implicated in CTCL pathogenesis. Pathway-level mutation frequencies were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, with effect sizes quantified as odds ratios. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Subtype-specific co-mutation patterns were evaluated using pairwise association analyses and visualized through oncoplots and network heatmaps. Conversational AI agents, AI-HOPE, were used to iteratively refine cohort definitions, prioritize pathway-level signals, and contextualize findings. Results: TMB was comparable between SS and PCAECTCL (p = 0.96), indicating no significant difference in global mutational load. In contrast, pathway-centric analyses revealed marked qualitative differences. SS demonstrated enrichment of alterations in epigenetic regulators, tumor suppressor and cell-cycle control pathways, NFAT signaling, and DNA damage response mechanisms, consistent with transcriptional dysregulation and immune modulation. PCAECTCL exhibited relatively higher frequencies of alterations involving epigenetic regulators and MAPK pathway signaling, suggesting distinct oncogenic dependencies. Co-mutation analysis revealed a more constrained and focused interaction landscape in SS, whereas PCAECTCL displayed broader and more heterogeneous co-mutation networks, indicative of divergent evolutionary trajectories. Notably, ERBB2 mutations were significantly enriched between subtypes (p = 0.031), highlighting a potential subtype-specific therapeutic vulnerability. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that SS is distinguished from PCAECTCL not by increased mutational burden but by distinct pathway-level architectures, particularly involving epigenetic regulation, immune signaling, and transcriptional control. These findings generate biologically grounded, testable hypotheses for subtype-specific therapeutic targeting and underscore the value of conversational AI as a scalable framework for accelerating discovery in translational cancer genomics.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.9%
2
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.8%
3
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.9%
4
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.7%
5
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
6
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
7
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
64 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.5%
8
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
9
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
10
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.4%
11
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
12
Breast Cancer Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
14
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
Cancer Cell
38 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.6%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 60%
1.6%
18
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
19
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.4%
20
Journal of Clinical Investigation
164 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
21
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
22
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
23
Translational Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
24
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
25
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
26
Molecular Oncology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
27
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 54%
0.9%
28
Nature Cancer
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
29
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
214 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
30
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%